W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2004

RE: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:50:45 -0800
To: "'He, Hao'" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>, "'Jim Webber'" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "'Josh Sled'" <jsled@asynchronous.org>, "'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)'" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Cc: "'Michael Champion'" <mc@xegesis.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <010901c3ef89$10a458f0$6501a8c0@beasys.com>

Why is this discussion happening?  Why even join the ws-arch group if you
don't like SOAP?  I can't get over that you even want to talk about this.

Dave

ps. The folks that tunnel over HTTP are using SOAP as a transport.  You want
them to use it as a transfer protocol.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: He, Hao [mailto:Hao.He@thomson.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 7:14 PM
> To: 'Jim Webber'; He, Hao; David Orchard; Josh Sled; Cutler, Roger
> (RogerCutler)
> Cc: Michael Champion; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document
>
>
> Yes, you cannot get lower than 1. However, it is not "the
> less the better".
> It is "a small set of well-defined verbs" that does the
> trick.  The Web
> already has GET,POST, DEL and PUT, so why reinvent the
> "wheel" in SOAP?  If
> you want to call something Web services, why don't do it the
> Web way?  What
> strikes me is that people want to call SOAP exclusively "the
> Web service"
> but they just view the Web merely as a transfer protocol.
>
> Hao
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Webber [mailto:Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 February 2004 13:57
> To: He, Hao; David Orchard; Josh Sled; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Cc: Michael Champion; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document
>
>
>
> Hao:
>
> > I would argue that the reason you want to limit the number of
> > verbs is that we are consuming services.
>
> Fine. I can reduce the number of verbs from my original two (SEND and
> RECEIVE) to just one (SEND). That certainly seems like the
> minimum I can
> get away with, can the REST approach do any better :-)
>
> Jim
>
Received on Monday, 9 February 2004 22:50:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:26 UTC